Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreThis matter arose from a large, long-running U.P. Police recruitment exercise (Sub-Inspector Civil Police/Platoon Commander PAC, roughly 4,010 sanctioned posts) that had spawned multiple rounds of litigation before the Allahabad High Court over issues like interpretation of Rule 15(j) on carrying forward vacancies, the number of candidates called for group discussion, and horizontal reservation. Alok Kumar Singh and others, whose writ petition (challenging the High Court's reading of Rule 15(j)) was dismissed by the High Court on 29.01.2016, approached the Supreme Court; their appeal was heard together with numerous connected civil appeals, writ petitions, and transferred cases raising overlapping issues from the same recruitment drive. The Supreme Court had earlier passed several interim directions over 2016-2018 on affidavits, eligibility cut-offs, and training of selected candidates.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interpretation of Rule 15(j) against the appellants' challenge, agreeing that unfilled vacancies (due to candidates failing medical/character verification) must ordinarily be carried forward to future selections, not given on the appellants' terms. However, as a one-time exception given the unusual facts (multiple revisions of the final list and the number of posts involved), the Court directed that 607 vacant posts (from discontinued/disqualified candidates) and 226 unfilled posts (reserved for dependents of freedom fighters, for whom no eligible candidates existed), totalling 833 posts, be filled in the present selection itself, strictly in merit order among those who scored 50% or more, rather than carried forward. It segregated a separate, unrelated group of promotion-related SLPs for listing before a different bench. All appeals, writ petitions, and transferred cases (including this one) were disposed of in these terms, with all related contempt petitions closed and no order as to costs.
Even where a court agrees with the general legal principle advanced by the government (here, that lapsed vacancies normally carry forward), it can still carve out a limited, one-time equitable exception when years of litigation and a specific, identifiable, small set of vacancies make rigid application unfair, but such relief based on merit is not limited only to the litigants who approached the court.
